Tuesday, November 17, 2015

The Kingless Kingdom of the Social Gospel

“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom
without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”[1]
That was H. Richard Niebuhr’s lament concerning the rise of liberal theology in
early twentieth century America and the social gospel that advanced because of
it—a gospelless gospel for a kingless kingdom.

According to Niebuhr, “the kingdom of God” had always been a
fixture in the theology of American Christians. But the concept had become
increasingly subjective as people re-defined it according to their own needs.
For the earliest Protestant colonizers of America, the kingdom of God meant
“the living reality of God’s present rule, not only in human spirits but also
in the world of nature and of human history.”[2]
That view was rooted firmly in the sovereignty of God and man’s complete
inability to bring this about apart from God’s regenerative work in the hearts
of men.[3]
The permeating influence on the surrounding culture would come about through
the evangelistic exploits and transformed lives of those already living in
submission to His sovereign rule.

For their evangelical descendants, the kingdom of God was
advanced by regenerating society through faith and love. The Roman Catholics
erred by identifying the church (as they understood it) to be the totality of
the kingdom of God.[4] But
as German liberalism crossed the Atlantic, the conversion of souls took a back
seat to the conversion of a corrupt society. The liberals, with their limited
focus (or sheer unbelief) in eternal life/damnation, replaced the Great
Commission with a social gospel. They actually thought God needed them to bring
the kingdom by transforming a society full of oppression, injustice, and
inequality. They wanted to see the kingdom come through the Christian takeover
of society—where they would right all the wrongs through social action and
activism.

Alva McClain observes:

According to this emphasis, the Kingdom of God is the
progressive social organization and improvement of mankind, in which society
rather than the individual is given first place. The main task of the Church
is, therefore, to establish a Christian Social Order which in turn will
actually make “bad men do good things.”[5]

Pay close attention to that quote. It drives at the grave
soteriological error of a social gospel informed by liberal theology. First,
they do not see man as “dead in [his] trespasses and sins” (Eph 2:1)[6]
but rather as someone in need of “improvement.” McLain backs his argument
against their denial of depravity by quoting the pioneer of Christian social
activism in America, Walter Rauschenbush—“bad men do good things.”[7]

Second, their view of the kingdom collectively rather than
individually is reflected in their view of sin. As you read this paper you will
notice that the social justice advocates quoted never refer to individual sins
such as lying, sexual immorality, and blasphemy. They always define sin as
something corporately enacted on the oppressed—institutionalized sins like
racism, exploitation, pollution, not being environmentally friendly, and paying
employees low wages. Thus they veer away from Christ’s atoning work as the
solution for sin, and seek a remedy through social activism. McClain goes on to
say:

The Kingdom of God became a “democracy” in which man and
God (if there is a God!) struggled together for the social redemption of
mankind. The Social Gospel thus developed may be traced back to a number of
religious and philosophical tendencies: First, an unwarranted belief in the
inherent goodness of man who, it is assumed, will do right if only given the
right kind of social environment. Second, an almost exclusive emphasis
immanence of God which. . . proceeded
to strip religion of supernatural elements, and more or less came to identify
God with the “social consciousness” of humanity. Third, a politically naïve
acceptance of Socialism as the best theory of government . . . by means of
rigid social controls. Fourth, a critical attitude toward the Bible, highly
subjective . . . as might more easily lend themselves to strictly social
interpretation. Fifth, the diminishing of essential theology to an alleged
universal Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man.[8]

Niebuhr was accurate when he described the soteriology of
the social gospel: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom
without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”[9]
They were his soteriological enemies, but he also realized that they were his eschatological
cousins.

Postmillennialism was the prevailing eschatology of the
nineteenth century. It informed Christian missiology and led most churches into
the twentieth century. It would take two world wars to kill off the unrealized postmillennial
optimism for a world increasingly conformed to the transforming power of the
gospel.

The theological liberalism that took root in America at that
time, while rejecting the evangelical gospel, still held to the same
eschatology, and flourished in that postmillennial climate—at least in the
concept of a temporal world constantly improving under the advancement of God’s
kingdom.

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), widely regarded as America’s
greatest Christian theologian, was famous for his thundering sermons on God’s
judgment. But he anticipated that the millennium would begin in this world,
around the year 2,000, before the final return of Christ. He saw this time
preceding Christ’s return as an era of peace and well-being where learning and
wisdom would increase. He foresaw new methods of global communication giving people
more time to savor “divine things.” Religion would be the chief concern of all
people and Christianity would spread far and wide.From his vantage point at mid-eighteenth century,
Edwards calculated that about two hundred and fifty years were needed to convert
the nations to faith in Christ.

Edwards took his calculations seriously and derived them
from the following estimations: fifty years for Christianity, “in the power and
purity of it,” to win over the Protestant world, fifty more years to gain the
ascendancy over the Roman Catholics, a further fifty years to subdue the
Islamic world and usher in the Jewish nation, and an extra hundred years to
completely evangelize and convert the heathen world—250 years beyond his own
lifetime.[10]

By the time of Edward’s death in 1758, post-millennialism
was growing and morphing with ever-closer links to the realms of politics and
nations. For the new emerging revolutionaries of that time, the antichrist was
no longer the pope but rather tyrannical earthly governments (although the pope
qualified for that realm as well). The Puritan preaching of New England became
heavily invested in the hostile rhetoric against Britain that fanned the flames
of revolution.[11]

Edwards would have
detested liberalism and their agenda of a social justice kingdom advanced by
human means. But his eschatology provided the fertile soil out of which another
gospel would emerge.[12]
Indeed Niebuhr identified the rising social gospel strain of liberalism as the
direct descendant of a postmillennial genealogy.[13]

One of the key biblical texts that social gospel advocates
appeal to is found in Luke:

Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when
the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God
is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’
or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.” (Luke 17:20–21)

Social justice advocates see
the phrase as proof of the kingdom of God being a present reality indwelling
God’s people. But could that be the case considering that Jesus was speaking to
the Pharisees whom He had elsewhere rebuked and refused entry into the kingdom
(Matt 21:43; 23:13)?

While in koine
Greek, entos humon does translate as
“inside of you,” it often carries the meaning of “within reach.”[14]
But the “in your midst” or “among you” renderings are more faithful to the
surrounding context of the passage. The kingdom of God was present among the
Pharisees because Christ was present among them. Also, the later passages of
Luke 19:11–27 and Luke 21:31 reveal a kingdom that awaits a future arrival.

Michael Vlach explains: “Jesus’ bodily presence carries with it a
presence of the kingdom. Yet there are consequences for when He leaves the
earth for a while. While He is physically removed from the earth the kingdom is
not present but will come in the future.”[15]John MacArthur adds that the kingdom, in its
present form, is a “spiritual dominion” and not an “earthly geopolitical
realm”:

Jesus described the current state of the kingdom as
intangible and invisible: “The kingdom of God does not come with observation;
nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God
is within [or among] you” (Luke 17:20–21 NKJV). He also said, “My kingdom is
not of this world” (John 18:36 NKJV).[16]

Without doubt, the most devastating error of the social
gospel is its eternal ramifications. Kevin DeYoung does well in articulating the heinousness
of the crime:

To proclaim the inauguration of the kingdom and all the
other blessings of God without telling people how they may become partakers of
those blessings is to preach a nongospel. Indeed it is to preach an
antigospel—bad news—because you’re simply explaining wonderful things that your
sinful hearers will never have the opportunity to be a part of. The gospel of
the kingdom—the broad sense of “gospel”—therefore, is not merely the
proclamation of the kingdom. It is the proclamation of the kingdom together
with the proclamation that people may enter it by repentance and faith in
Christ.[19]

Tony Campolo argues that Jesus first and primary message was
not about sin but to inform people that “the kingdom of God is at hand” (Matt
4:17; Mark 1:15).[20]
What is so deceitful about such a contention is that Campolo makes no mention of
Jesus actually preceding that statement with the call to repentance: “Repent
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 4:17). By ignoring (or concealing)
such critical detail, Campolo is able to then persuade the reader further based
on his own definition of God’s kingdom.

And that is exactly what he does: “God wants this kingdom to
become established on earth, now! . . . God’s kingdom is a new society that
Jesus wants to create in this world—within human history, not after the Second
Coming or a future apocalypse or anything else. But right now.”[21]

Pay special attention to that last quote. Any lengthy
reading of social gospel activists like Campolo will regularly encounter the
phrase “God wants” or “Jesus wants.” Such phrases implicitly impugn God’s
sovereignty by suggesting that God needs human agents to help Him bring about
what He desires but cannot quite bring to pass.

While Campolo concedes ultimate fulfillment awaits Christ’s
return, he still sees God’s kingdom being expanded “through faithful servants,
both inside the church and outside the church, bringing hope to the poor,
liberation to the oppressed, and the creation of a new society in which love
and justice reign.”[22]
Campolo continues in that vein: “Remember: the whole creation is waiting for us
to be instruments of God, through which it will be delivered from its present
tragic condition.”[23]

If you are wondering what he meant by “faithful servants,
both inside the church and outside the church,” Campolo makes it pretty
obvious: “Believe it or not, U2’s lead singer Bono is using his wealth and
celebrity status to do just that: increase the kingdom of God in the here and
now.”[24]
So, according to Campolo, not only is kingdom expansion achievable by
Christians, unbelievers are also growing its territory.

Kevin DeYoung repudiates such theological delusions of
grandeur. Since the kingdom of God is not yet physically present on earth it
cannot be physically expanded—especially by well meaning social workers: “The
kingdom isn’t geographical . . . and therefore you cannot ‘expand the kingdom’
by bringing peace and order and justice to a certain area of the world. Good
deeds are good, but they don’t broaden the borders of the kingdom.”[25]

Brian McLaren tries to conceal his theological guilt by
veiling his error in an endless stream of questions. But at times he overplays
his hand revealing how he understands God’s kingdom and the human means by
which he believes it will be established:

What if Jesus’ secret message reveals a secret plan? What
if he didn’t come to start a new religion—but rather came to start a political,
social, religious, artistic, economic, intellectual, and spiritual revolution
that would give birth to a new world? What if his secret message had practical
implications for such issues as how you live your daily life, how you earn and
spend money, how you treat people of other races and religions, and how the
nations of the world conduct their foreign policy? What if his message directly
or indirectly addressed issues like advertising, environmentalism, terrorism,
economics, sexuality, marriage, parenting, the quest for happiness and peace,
and racial reconciliation?[26]

Campolo and McLaren bring nothing new to the table. They are
merely echo chambers of the liberals from a century ago.

Reconciliation between sinful men and a Holy God, and the
preaching thereof, is simply not on Jim Wallis’ radar when it comes to the core
of Christianity:

It’s time to reassert and reclaim the gospel
faith—especially in our public life. When we do, we discover that faith challenges
the powers that be to do justice for the poor, instead of preaching a
“prosperity gospel” and supporting politicians who further enrich the wealthy.
We remember that faith hates violence and tries to reduce it and exerts a
fundamental presumption against war, instead of justifying it in God’s name. We
see that faith creates community from racial, class, and gender divisions and
prefers international community over nationalist religion.[28]

Much as Wallis detests the prosperity gospel, his social
version is no better. It may land him at the other end of the political
spectrum, but it brings him no closer to the gospel faith that pre-occupied
Jesus’ ministry—calling on sinners to repent (Matt 3:2; Mark 1:15) that they
would be spared from God’s wrath (Luke 13:3, 5). Both those who are wealthy and
those who are oppressed will still find themselves shut out from God’s kingdom
lest they repent and believe (John 3:36).

Wallis’ delusion and hypocrisy run deeper than that as well.
I say delusion because anyone with normal vision should be able to see (and
smell) the hypocrisy of calling a Marxist manifesto, “God’s Politics,” while
chastising his right wing opponents for their narrow claim that “God is on our
side.”[30]
Wallis may try to present himself as non-partisan—“God is not a Republican or a
Democrat”[31]—but
that veneer is already destroyed by the time he gets through his introduction.

It is highly recommended that you have an air sickness bag on hand while watching the following video:

Supposed bastions of Reformed theology have not been immune
to its infiltration. The language may now be couched in better soteriology, but
its Calvinistic uniform has served as a Trojan horse to ease its infiltration.
Tim Keller pastors one of the largest non-liberal Presbyterian churches in the
United States—Redeemer Church in New York City. He is a founder of The Gospel
Coalition and revered by young Calvinists. But he has also garnered
considerable respect in the secular world. The social justice projects of his
church have won him plenty of admirers from outside the church. And Keller
works hard at phrasing hard-edged biblical truths in a way that is far more
socially palatable.

The question that needs to be asked is whether he rephrases,
or revises, central salvific truths. In many instances I would argue for the
latter. Keller’s use of the term Shalom may differ from Campolo’s “expanding
the kingdom” through human effort apart from regeneration, but his description
is eerily familiar:

You may find yourself longing intensely for something
that your reason tells you is futile or your conscience tells you is absolutely
wrong, but you can’t stop wanting it or seeking it. Then you experience an
inner unraveling of psychological shalom, commonly given names like “guilt,”
“being conflicted,” or “anxiety.”[36]

Conviction of sin, which produces guilt, is a central work
of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers and unbelievers. But Keller’s
quote regarding guilt sounds far more influenced by modern psychology and seems
to be described in a negative light. But it is in his description of how shalom
is obtained that Keller sounds most like an echo chamber of his liberal
predecessors from a century earlier:

When the society disintegrates, when there is crime,
poverty, and family breakdown, there is no shalom. However, when people share
their resources with each other, and work together so that shared public
services work, the environment is safe and beautiful, the schools educate, and
the businesses flourish, then the community is experiencing shalom. When people
with advantages invest them in those who have fewer, the community experiences
civic prosperity or social shalom.[37]

Niebuhr’s postmillennial eschatology was not without its
problems. But both he and Jonathan Edwards saw no possible advancing kingdom,
or shalom, through wedding missionary endeavor with civil/governmental
institutions. They desired the transformation of society but only ever saw the
kingdom advancing or expanding through the advancement of the gospel. Both
Keller and Russel D. Moore may well be emblematic of a growing infiltration of the social
gospel into how the evangelical and Reformed movements view the kingdom of God,
its timing, its scope, and the role believers should be playing in that.

Two passages of Scripture that rarely, if ever, gets press
regarding biblical arguments against the social gospel are in Matthew 11 and
Luke 7 when John the Baptist, while imprisoned, sent his disciples to question Jesus over His messiahship.

If ever there was a circumstance for Jesus to enter into
robust social engagement of his time, the unjust imprisonment (and imminent
beheading) of John the Baptist would have been it. Jesus may have proclaimed
John the Baptist to be the greatest of the Old Testament prophets (Matt 11:11),
but He also sent his disciples away with a mission field report. Jesus made
zero effort to visit John or seek his liberty. Jesus did not arrange for His
disciples to picket the prison or make an appeal to the United Nations.

Jesus knew that both He and John were on divinely appointed
timetables for martyrdom. As He would later inform Pilate: “My kingdom is not
of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be
fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My
kingdom is not of this realm” (John 18:36).

You would not tell your children, “Wash always; if
necessary, use water.” Nor would you advise a friend, “Be a faithful husband;
if necessary, love your wife.” Those redundant instructions defy logic. They
also beg the question about what other means you would employ to accomplish
those goals. You might as well tell someone, “Stay alive; if necessary, breath
oxygen.”

And yet many Christians rally around a similarly illogical
statement when it comes to evangelism. “Preach the gospel; if necessary, use
words,” is a mantra that is a darling of social gospel activists.

Tony Campolo is one of the most prominent advocates for the
social gospel. His handling of Matthew 25 typifies the wider movement. While
not explicitly denying the gospel of grace alone, he argues that it is our
treatment of the poor and oppressed that will determine our eternity: “I place
my highest priority on the words [red letters] of Jesus, emphasizing the 25th chapter of
Matthew, where Jesus makes clear that on Judgment Day the defining question
will be how each of us responded to those he calls ‘the least of these.’”[44]

The Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education
(EAPE), of which Campolo was founder and president, clearly defines who he
thinks “the least of these” are:

That Jesus was homeless and taught that we may encounter
Him in “the least of these”—the hungry, thirsty, naked, sick, widow, stranger
and imprisoned (Matthew 25:35-40),
is the basis of what Tony calls the Whole Gospel and informs EAPE’s[45]
holistic ministry. And it raises questions for the Church and every
Christian: what should be our response to the homeless and to “the least of
these”?[46]

Note Campolo’s use of the term “Whole Gospel.” He is
implying that proclamation of the good news is only a partial gospel and must
be accompanied by social action in order to become a complete or “whole”
gospel. But his imbalanced emphasis betrays his mishandling of Matthew
25:35–40.

Works vs. Faith

The Bible repeatedly teaches that good works are ultimately God’s works because they are the
natural fruit of salvation; never the cause (cf. Ezek 36:25–27; Jas 2:14–17).
And in Matthew 25 you don’t see judgment based on works, you see works
revealing who is truly saved by faith. John MacArthur is emphatic on this
point:

The good deeds commended in Matthew 25:35–36
are the fruit, not the root, of salvation. It cannot be emphasized too strongly
that they are not the basis of entrance into the kingdom. Christ will judge
according to works only insofar as those works are or are not a manifestation
of redemption, which the heavenly Father has foreordained. If a person has not
trusted in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, no amount of seemingly good works
done in His name will avail to any spiritual benefit.[47]

Note also those who Christ condemns were actually surprised that their works did not qualify them: “When did we . . . not” (Matt 25:44).

False Faith vs. True Faith

Another critical issue in understanding Matthew 25 is to
recognize that the division Christ makes is not between the church and the
pagan world, but between true and false Christians. While the pagan lives in
open unbelief, the false Christian is an imposter who has blended in among
God’s people. False Christians are the recipients of Christ’s most terrifying
judgment:

So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone
who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does
the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that
day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out
demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?” And then I will declare to
them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.” (Matt
7:20–23)

Matthew 25:34–46 makes a similar division between those who
have genuine faith and those whose faith is false, according to the evidence of
their works. Note carefully that both groups of people think they are
Christians because they address Jesus as “Lord” (Matt 25:37, 44). Both groups
are also surprised by the verdict. The surprise reveals humility among Christ’s
people (“when did we,” Matt 25:37–39) and self-righteousness among those who
are faking it (“when did we . . . not,” Matt 25:44).

Citizens of the World vs. Citizens of the Kingdom

Finally, the beneficiaries of these good works are not the
disenfranchised people of the world, as Campolo suggests. The word “brothers” (Matt
25:40) is vital to understanding where our benevolence is to be directed. Jesus
is saying that the fruit of genuine faith is evidenced in the way we care for fellow believers who are suffering
(cf. John 13:35; 1 John 3:10–11). MacArthur brings this point home:

The King’s addressing these people as brothers of Mine
gives still further evidence that they are already children of God. . . .
Because of their identity with Christ, they will often be hungry, thirsty,
without decent shelter or clothing, sick, imprisoned, and alienated from the
mainstream of society.[48]

This is not to deny any duty we have to love the disenfranchised
people of the world. But if proponents of the social gospel were serious about
Scripture, they would target passages that refer to loving our neighbors (Matt
22:39)—even loving our enemies (Matt 5:44). Christ’s words in Matthew 25 have nothing to do with the social justice
being advocated by its proponents.

Incarnational vs. Eschatological

It is after Christ’s return that this great and final
judgment takes place. The heirs of the kingdom enter the kingdom of God fully
prepared for them from the foundation of the world (Matt 25:34) where they will
live forever with the King as He reigns on the new earth over His kingdom.

Matthew 25:34–46 was never written as a blueprint for
salvation through social work nor should it be employed as such. It is not an
argument for preaching the gospel through our actions alone, but rather that
our actions authenticate the gospel we preach. And those actions must be
prioritized towards our suffering fellow believers. We must care for other
believers because Jesus commanded us to. We must also realize that a lack of
care may point to a lack of saving faith. And you should always preach the
gospel with words because they are always necessary.

Jesus did not expect men to overcome evil by their own
power. Nor did He conceive of a gradual conquest of evil by processes immanent
within historical and societal experience. It is significant that Jesus said
nothing about building the Kingdom or of His disciples bringing in the
Kingdom—both being expressions which have been popular in modern theology. Evil
is so radical that it can be overcome only by the mighty intervention of God.[52]

And what is that mighty intervention? Thomas Schreiner
answers clearly that it all hinges on the person and work of Christ:

How is it that the eschatological promises, the promises
of the kingdom, are now available for believers? Paul anchors these promises in
the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Justification, redemption,
sanctification, reconciliation, propitiation, and defeat of the principalities
and powers have been secured through the death and resurrection of Jesus. In
other words, no one can enter the kingdom apart from the forgiveness of sins.[53]

[10]
James McDermott, One Holy and Happy
Society: The Public Theology of Jonathan Edwards (University Park, PA:
Pennsylvania State University, 1992), 78.

[11]
Although I would argue that if they were really serious about a revolution they
would have thrown the coffee in the harbor.

[12]
It is easy to be an armchair critic of Edward’s eschatology, especially with
the extra 250 years of hindsight we now own. But I want the record to show that
my criticisms are only for the sake of tracing the roots of the social gospel.
Edwards’ burning desire for mission to all people groups cannot be esteemed
highly enough and other eschatological persuasions should still be able to
extend charity in recognizing the role postmillennial Christians played as
pioneers in the realm of global missions.

[45]
The EAPE has been recently re-launched as “The Campolo Center for Ministry.”

[46]
Red Letter Christians, “What if the Homeless Man on the Bench Was Jesus?,” EAPE
Website. http://eape.org/tag/matthew-2535-40-rich-mullins/
(accessed October 31, 2015). Red Letter Christians is another social justice
group who have created a canon within the Canon by prioritizing Jesus’ spoken
words in Scripture. Not only are they undermining biblical authority and
inerrancy, but if they were really serious about the “Red Letters” then they
would have a lot to say about hell since Jesus had so much to say on the
subject. It just goes to show how little they really care for the Bible whether
the letters are black or red.

4 comments:

Welcome back Cameron!! What a post!! So much to digest. I would completely agree with you on almost every note!! God's king, Jesus, gathering his people by the power of the Holy Spirit, for the arrival of the new Jerusalem!! While we wait brother, there is much fruitful labour for us do, i.e. loving those who don't yet know Christ by preaching his Gospel!!

May I caution you though, brother!! I have read and listened to much of Keller's work. Perhaps I haven't read what you said perfectly, but as far as I'm concerned, Keller preachers the gospel faithfully! He calls sinners to repent of sin and turn to Christ. I find he does it better than many! His methods tend to be tailored to people who may not be familiar with the Christian lingo. This is essentially what Jesus, Paul and Peter did. Any good teacher does this.